2008 but a perhaps more difficult battle lies ahead. >> that was nbc's ron mott reporting. >>> katie fangconviction yet. what does this all mean for r. kelly then? >> what we do know, phillip, r. kelly couldn't come up with the down payment of the $100,000 for the $1 million bond so he spent another night in jail in chicago last night. what we do know in this particular case, phillip, what makes it different in this acquittal is that we have dna in this case and we also have four willing victims who are offering to come forward to testify against him in a trial in front of a jury of his peers, and that's a big difference. we also have a videotape wherein you heard during ron's package that he actually is acknowledging that the victim is 14 years of age. so there's a lot of things that are stacked up against r. kelly. one thing that particularly stands out that we heard during the bond hearing yesterday, phillip, that was disturbing is during that 2008 trial one of the victims in this current case who was 16 years old at the time went up to him and asked him for his autograph after a court

joining me now is legal contributor katy fang.ecial counsel want to talk to sarah sanders about? >> reporter: how about everything she heard and seen and what they talked about. mueller wants to know are the public representations made by the white house through trump or rudy giuliani or press secretary sarah sanders? are the statements made from the white house, are they obstruction of justice statements? statements made to throw people like mueller off the trail or off the scent of collusion, spea conspiracy theory. it was last last year that john kelly was interviewed and they threw up objections to the fact the continue iinterview happene. we tonigdon't know what they ta about. >> i'll tell you what sanders said about the june trump tower meeting. here it is. >> the statement that don junior issued is true. there's no inaccuracy in the statement. he certainly didn't dictate. >> the outside counsel did weigh in. the president diresident dictat statement. >> do you want to correct your statement? >> once again, i'll not go into

. >> joining me is katie fang and ashley merchant.s to christmas, if you are a defendant, you should just be quiet. don't say anything. what is your take on that and what stone just said in defending himself? >> well, i think there's two sides to that. a lot of times, you want your client, the criminal defendant to be quiet. i think roger stone is smart saying, shouting from the rooftops, i'm innocent. this is not a witch hunt. we have the government that issues an indictment, the raid is public. this is evidence of guilt and would taint a jury pool and cause them to think he is guilty. he's dpgot a right to say, i'm t guilty and he wants to shout it from the rooftop. it makes lawyers nervous, but it is his right and can be considered as a smart move. >> i get it, it's his right. would you be advising him to shout from the rooftops if you were defending him? >> i would be very cautious. i wouldn't want those statements used against him. any statements that later on in a trial could be used against him. a lot of times, you get nervous

and katie fang, msnbc legal contributor. thank you, all. this is like l.a. confidential but in the middle off a huge political fight. give this basis of the blackmail story. >> so we reported last week that jeff bezos had opened and personally funding the investigation into how these text messages ended up in "the national enquirer" >> photographs? >> and photographs. there were a lot of personal details. movement by movement accuracy is as one described it to me. so he's trying to figure out how this happened. he tasks his long-time personal security consultant, a man named given a debacker. >> i know him. >> yeah, he's a storied person in this field, this personal security protection field. and he has determined with a pretty high degree of accuracy that he believes these were political motivations behind this leak and the publication of these text messages. we had sources telling us -- >> what did he mean by political? why would jeff bezos think the ami "national enquirer" was out to get him for political purposes. >> "the national enquirer" and david pec

. >>> we want toring in katie fang, former prosecutor. >> good morning. >> ten charges, ten counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse righte here. th prosecutors say there are four victims. these allegations0 date back 3 years. based on what we know of the evidence, how challenging of a case is this for prosecutors? >> well, typically, in a sexual assault or sexual case, it is a heidsa/she said case, which can be difficult por arosecutor to prove. however, guys, particular situation, based upon the fact they're at a minimum for one of the victims with a video of an alleged sex act between r. kelly and one of thei ims, it lends itself to being corroborating evidence for the prosecution. that's exactly what as a prosecutor. you usually don't get that. you just get their testimony as them against that of the departmet, defendf he even testifies in court. the existence of at least one video. avenatti said perhaps there is another video that can help cook coun county d.a. prosecute the cases. >> isas hearing t morning that there were videos before. this one, essentially, y clearly see his

. >> katie fang oigis a prosecutor. >> ten counts prosecutors say there are four victims. these allegations date back 30 years. but based on what we know of the evidence. >> how challenging of a case is this? >> typically it is a he said/she said case.of a case is this? >> typically it is a he said/she said case. which can be difficult to prove. but based upon the fact that at a minimum there exists a video of an alleged sex act between r. kellyanne one of the vehicle and one of the the victims,ing it corroborating evidence and that is what you want. you usually don't get that you usually get their testimony as the victim against that of the defendant good he even at all speaks if he even testifies in court. so the existence of at least one video, of aavenatti says perhaps there is another video. >> and there are a lot of people wondering that there were videos before. but this one you can clearly see his face. is that the difference this time especially if you have more videos? >> yeah, and kind ever of disturbing that that is the way we judge the case is the quality of a